FILED

18 JUN 04 PM 3:48
l
KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLER
2 E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 18-2-14146--0 SEA
3

.5

7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING

9 TIEN THACH, M.D. NO.

lO Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

11 \I.

12 MATRIX ANESTHESIA, P.S., a

Washington corporation; SEAN KINCAID,
13 M.D., an individual person; JOHN
C0S1ELW, t..·tD., an individual person;
14 JOHN DOES I-XX, individual persons,

15 Defendants.

16 Tien Thach, M.D., by and through her attorneys, FREY BUCK, P.S., alleges the 1ollclwing
17
facts and causes uf action against the above-named defendants a~ follows:
18
I. PARTIES
19
LI Plaintiff Tien Thach, :M:.D. ('Thach") is a resident Bellevue, King County,

Wa..,hington.
21 1.2 Defendant Matrix Anesthesia, P.S. ('Matrix") is, on mfonnation and belief, a
22 Washington Corporation doing business in King County, Washington.
23 Defendant Sean Kincaid, M.D. ("Kincaid") is, on information and belief, aresident
L3

CO~'IPL.i\.INT. l FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 nrn-t AVENUE, SUIT£ 19:JO
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P. (206)486·8000 r (206) 902~9ooo
 1 of Snohomish County, Washington. Dr. Kincaid is a shareholder and the Chief Executive Of(icer

2 of Matrix. Dr. Kincaid is aL~o a member-al-large of Matrix Anesthesia Evergreen, a division of

3 Matrix.

4 1.4 Defendant John Costell o,J:..if.D. (" Costello") is, on infonnati on and belief, aresident

5 of King County, Washington. Dr. Costello is a member of Matrix Anesthesia CorporJtion and

6 acts as it.;; Financial Officer. Dr. Costello is also the President of Matrix Anesthesia

7 Overtake,

8 L5 John I-XX are currently unknown corpurn.te leaders of Matrix who were

9 iTI'rnlved in and/or approved Wrt)ngful corporate actions described herein.

lO IL JURISDICTION Ai"l"D VENUE

l1 This court has jurisdiction over thi..._ matter because Matrix Anesthesia, P,S. is a

12 closely held corpor&tion headquartered and tnmsacting busines.... in King County, Washingt<)rL

13 Upon infonnaLion and belief Matrix, Costello, Does and Dr. Thach all work, and may be

14 found in King County, Washington; defendant Kincaid works in King County.

15 Venue in the Superior Court of King County, Washington is proper because all act£

16 and omiss1ons giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in King County, "washington.

17 IlL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18 3.l Plaintiff Tien Thach, M.D., was originally employed by Matrix on October 3, 2010.

19 :Matrix has two divisions: Matrix Anesthesia Overlake ('hd:AO"), serving O.rerlake Hospital and

20 Medical Center in Bellevue, Wa.;;hington and Matrix Anesthesia Evergreen ('J:v.!AE") serving

22 as an employee and later as a shareholder of Matrix.

23 3.2 In August of 2013, the MAO divisional board asked Dr. Thach to accept the role of

COMPL.I\INT - 2 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FIFTH AVENUE, 500£: 1000
SEA tTLE, WA 98101
P. (206} 486-0000 F (200} 902-9660
 1 lv.IAO' s Divisional Compliance Officer. Dr. Thach accepted the role. She was elected to the

2 position of MAO Board Trea.s,ureron August 25, 2016 for a tWt>-yeartenn fo'.lm 2017 to 2019.

3 3.3 Dr. Thach's responsibilities as the divisional compliance officer included

4 addressing potential legal and practice-related compliance issues. Despite these responsibilities,

5 the Matrix board informed Dr. Thach that she was not permitted to contact corporate legal counsel

6 with questions or concerns. Contact with Matrix l.'OUnsel was expressly limited to the CEO and

7 CFO. Dr. Thach was informed that this rule ,va-. enacted by Defendant Kincaid a-. president of

8 Matrix.

9 3.4 On October 18, 2016, a MAO divi.,ional meeting included a pre1sentalion by

IO Defendant John Costello, M.D. and Dr. Dave Knoepfler, then the Chief Medical Officer of

11 Overlake Hospital. Defendant Costello and Dr. Knoepfler announced that a new administrative

12 posilion, J\·fodical DireCUJrofSurgical Services, had been created al Overtake, and moreover, that

J3 Overlake hoped Defendant Costello would accept the position.

14 3.5 The ?viedical Director of Surgical Services salary stmcmre described by Defendant

15 CostelJo concerned Dr. Thach in her role as compliance officer. Defendant proposed splitting his

16 time between the two positicms; halftime a..;; an MAO anesthesiologist, and the other half in the

l7 administrative role. However, Defendant sooght to retain his full-time anesthesiologist salary· of

J8 approximately $500,000. Because the new position included a S 150,000 stipend, and half-time

19 anesthesiology work would net approximately $250,000, Dr. Knoepfler suggested Matrix should

support Costello in the new po."iitkm; Cm~tello subsequently specifically indicated that to support

him in the new position MAO would have to make up the di.fference (>f approximately $100,000

in his prospective lost wages annually. Plaintiff was concerned that this financial armngement

23 risked running afoul of anti-kickback statutes.

COMPLAINT- 3 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 nrm: AVENUE, SUIT£ 1roo
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P• 486~8000 F: (206) 902-9660
 3.6 On October 25, 2016, Dr. Thach brought he:r Ct)ncetns related to i.he new medical

2 director position salary struclllre to Matrix Corporate C(>mpl iance Officer Raphael N. Rodriguez,

3 M.D., in accord with proper procedure and to assure IJansparency. Dr. Rodriguez confirmed that

4 defendant Costello wa., as.king Matrix to contribute approximately $100,000 to allow him to take

5 the new position without suffering a decrease in his usual earnings. Dr. Rodriguez reported that

6 1',·fatrix Counsel Lee Thorson previously approved a similar mr<tngement for two MAE

7 anesthesiologists, and that}& Thonon's blessing would be sought for the Costello arrangement.

8 Satisfied with Dr. Rodriguez's response, Dr. Thach did not pursue the matter further.

9 3.7 One of the two MAE anesthesiologists receiving a similar financial contribution to

iO the one proposed by Defendant Costell,1 on information and belief, Defendant Sean Kincaid,

ll M.D., who serves as Medical Staff Vice President at Ever-green Hospital.

12 3.8 In January 2017 Dr. Thach attended i.he American Society Anesi.hesiologists

13 Pr&ctice Management conference in Dallas, Texas in her rnle as divisional compliance officer. On

14 the last day of the conference, she attended a session entitled "Anti-Kickback Statutes/Stark l.aw

15 Lecture" presented by Marc Vezina, Esq. The presentation provided detailed information cm anti-

16 kickback rules and appeared to al least potentially impact the proposed medical director position

17 that Dr. Thach had earlier discussed with Dr. Rodriquez. The presentation rekinciled Plaintiff's

18 concems that the arrangement could expose the group to legal liability given the proposed salary

19 "contributions" required to make up Defendant Costello's lessened earnings in the new position.

20 Dr. Thach, seeking f<J maintain ccmfidentiality and to protect the group, anonymously approached

21 the presenting attorney at lecture's end to generally describe her concerns. She provided no

22 identifying information regarding the group.

23 3.9 The presenting attorney informed Dr. Thach that she had good tea'K>n lo be

COMPL.\INT • 4 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FlFT'.i-1 A VENUE, SUITE 19:.rO
S!::AITL.E, WA 98101
P: 486-8000 F. (206} 902,9660
 l concemed over the arrangement, and suggested that she have the group re-evalua(e the

2 arrangement to a'\sure it was not exposing i t.ielf U> potential sanction.

3 3.J0 On January 30, 2017, pursuant to her fiduciary duties as compliance officer and as

4 a shareholder of Matrix, Plaintiff contacted Dr. Rodriguez to ag-ain express concern over the

S legality/propriety of the medical director arrnngement given the information she had gle-aned at the

6 conference. Dr. Rodriguez expressed concern, assumed re1.ponsibility for all further in\!estigation

7 and follow-up, and accepted Dr. Thach's offer to provide the presenting attorney's contact

8 information. Dr. Thach took no further action believing Dr. Rodriguez had the authority to

9 properly investigate and cure any potential impropriety.

lO ll On March 28, 2017, \Vithout warning and prompted by her report to Dr. Rodriguf:'z,

11 Dr. Thach was publicly anacked at a Matrix Corporate Board meeting. Defendants Kincaid and

12 Costello displayed a Po\verPoint presentation through which they accused plaintiff of a broad

13 range of "wrongdoing." Significantly, both defendants were personally involved in salary

14 supplement arrangements with Matrix that were the cause of Dr Thach's anti-kick-back concerns,

15 as properly presented to Dr. Rodri&'Uez. Each defendant realized personal gain from the

l6 arrangements. The defendants' presentation was factually inaccumte and knowint;ly false. lt

17 directly impacted Plaintiff in her pmfes.<.ion. Defendants accused Dr. Thach of several alleged

18 misdeeds:

19 • Bypassing the board and circumventing normal issue-escalation procedure;

20 • Acting on a "personal agenda";

21 • Failure to fulfill fiduciary duties to serve in the corporation's best interest; and,

• Impennissibly seeking outside legal counsel and ignoring the advice of "trusted

23 legal counsel.''

COMPL..\INT - 5 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FU''.IH A VENUE, SUITE 19JO
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P. (206} 486·8000 F (206) 902,9660
 l 3.12 Defendants' assault on Dr. Thach's character failed to address the trnth of her

2 actions - that she had expres.~d legitimate concerns through the appropriate corpor.1te structure

3 that the group's agreements -with °'1·erlake and E~.rergreen Hospitals tn21}' be in violation of anti-

4 kickback laws. Defendants further failed to express orin anyway recognize that it was Dr. Thach' s

5 fiduciary duty to address such potential problems in her role a.-. divisional compliance officer and

6 that it was in her interest as a shareholder of the corporntion to bring to light and avoid potential

7 corporate improprieties.

8 3.13 Plaintiff had received no wamrng that such attack was coming; defendants

9 presented her \1;rith no opport1.ntity to fairly refute the false accusations.

10 3.14 On April 3, 2017, Corpomte Compliance Chairman Rodriguez told Dr. Thach she

11 had indeed followed proper protocols by escalating the matter to him, and that he" got in trouble"

12 with Defendant Kincaid for investigating the matter. Dr. Rodriguez indicated that he W()Uld soon

l3 step down from the corporation's compliance office.

14 3J5 On April 5, 2017, the final board meeting minutes were published, but in deviation

15 from standard pntclice, were made available to MAO members only by written request, and then

16 only via hard copy. Dr. Thach had previously provided a detailed written response to the

17 inaccumte minutes and the unfounded attack by defendants~ the approved minutes pmvided no

18 reference to her facts and corrections, Instead, the minutes simply reported that Plaintiff

19 "disagreed" that her efforts were inconsistent with her duties, and that she had presented "reasons"

20 for her disagreement The minutes did not provide the shareholders \vi.th notiL'e of the potential

21 pmblem presented by the salary enhancement arran~ment

22 3.16 Shocked at the attack by the defendanL,; a..;; corporate leaders and their manipulation

23 of the corporate struL1ure to intimidate and oppress her in her role as divisi()nal compliance officer

COMPUUNT-6 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200FIFTH AV£NU£,5Uft£19:>0
5£A.TtLE, WA 98101
P. (.206}486·8000 F (206}902-9660
 l and a shareholder of the corporation, Dr. Thach believed she had no ahemative but to proffer a

2 lener of resignation from her positions as MAO Treasurer, Matrix Corporate Board Member, and

3 MAO Divisic,n C(>mpliance Officer. Dr. Thach subsequently turned her focus to the care of her

4 patients.

5 3.17 Dr. Thach remained an active and engaged shareholder; exercising her shareholder

6 righl'i and respcmsibilities, she c(;ntinued to voice her opinions about issuessunoundingthe proper

7 governance of the group. Her statement'> as a shareholder (lf the organization ,vere frequently

8 contrary to the defendants' positions 011 ,n!irious issues but unifonnly presented in a respectful and

9 appr(lpriate manner.

10 3.18 Among the issues facing the corporation was a po!ential sale of the corporation to

11 an outside organizatinn. Corpnrale leadership, including Costello and Kincaid, strongly supported

12 the sale. Dr. Thach expressed her opinion to othe.r shareholders that the terms of the sale would

13 not benefit the gmup in the long term. On information and belief, Matrix corporate officers

14 working to secure approval of the sale of the group to the outside company were to receive

15 significant personal bemuse~ fmm I.he purchasing l.'Ompany, in addition t<> their share value. On

16 information and belief, Defondants C.Ostello and Kincaid were working to achieve the sale and

l7 suiod to benefit from it beyond their individual share values.

18 3.19 In addition, on information and belief the payout to individual shareholders in the

19 event of a sale to the ouL~ide company would increase if the tntal number of shareholders were

20 redu<:"ed. Accordingly, defendants would individually benefit by reducing the number of

21 shareholders.

3.20 In January JO 18, according to the group's tradition, Dr. Thach began Lo plan a

23 retirement party for a follow shareholder. Defendant Costello respnnded to her communications

CO~LAINT-7 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 fittH AVENUE, SUITE 19:J0
SEA 'ITLE, WA 98101
P · (206) 486,-8000 F:
 l with factual inaccuracies and inconsistent instructions in an attempt to dissuade her efforts. Other

2 shareholders subsequently noted the propriety of Dr. Thach's approach and its consistency with

3 prior group practice. Defendant Costello nevertheless steadfastly hewed to his inaccurate position

4 and directed the issue away from the board's consideration. Defendant Costello's resistance took

5 the character of retaliatory, personal attack bereft of factual support - much like the earlier

6 PO\verPoint defamation.

7 3.21 On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff was told by lv.IAO's scheduler that the l-.·1AO Board

8 intended to call her out of sefV'ice for an impromptu "meeting." The warning stated that Plaintiff

9 W(lUld be pulled from the operating r<Jom in the middle of the morning on January 26 to attend a

10 meeting with Dr. Dorothy Ling and Dr. Guy Kuo, rnlher than at an official board meeting. Dr.

l1 Thach .l<>eated Dr. Ling on January 26 and inqmred after the rn eeting' s purpose: Ling responded

12 that it was a "fnendlyrneeting a&.1ice"

13 Dr. Thach was cclntemed about the aberrant meeting demand given her pa.-.t

14 treatment by lhe defendants and the Matrix board. To help avoid any new surprise attacks and to

15 support fairness and tnmsparency, on January 26, 2018 Dr. Thach delivered a ,..,,riuen message to

16 Defendant Costello stating that mm wa." cclncemed about attending impromptu meetings and would
17 not subject herself to another unprovoked surprise attack. Instead, she reque.,;ted written

18 notification of any planned meetings, including an agenda or at least some indication of the topic

l9 and the names of those expected to attend. Plaintiff aLw requested advance notice so that she could

20 invite counsel to attend if pos-..,,ible and stated that she wished "to fully cooperate .. and attend any

21 public or private meetings "

3.23 On March 13, '.:!018, the Matrix board responded by terminating Dr. Thach's

23 employment, effective immediately. The Board subsequently sent a message to all shareholders

COMPLAINT·· 8 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 rmH AVENUE, SUITE 19::iO
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P. (2.06) 486-8000 f
 J openly suggesting her termination wa.... the result of clinical failures or activities contrary to the

2 interest.... of the corporalion. On informalion and belief, the mes.,:;,age wa.-; written by and/or

3 approved by Defendants Costello, Kincaid and/or Doe,-.. The sratement wa.~ utterly and knowingly

4 false.

5 3.24 On information and belief, Defendants subsequently started rum on that Plaintiff" s

6 termination was due to a "drug problem", that it was premised upon an alleged threat made by

7 Plaintiff"s long-time compatuon, and that the companion had attempted to "hack" the group's

8 common posting ,vall. AU of these allegations are wholly unfounded.

9 3.25 Matrix Ane.'>Lhesia, P.S. and the Matrix board are resJ)<}nsibJe for violations ,,f
10 ·washington law related to corporate governance, fiduciary obligations, and minority liliareholder

11 rights. Defendants' actions also constitute the tort of Outrage and have defamed Dr. Thach in her

12. professional endeavors.

13 On March 13. :2018, Dr. Thach received an anonymous letter from "The Matrix

14 Board" infonning her that her shareholder rights had been terminated. In terminating Dr. Thach' s

15 shareholder rights, defendants Matrix, Kincaid, Costello and Does I-XX violated the corporation's

16 bylaws. The termination was. beyond the authority of the board and unauthorized under the bylaws.

17

18 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLA,TION OF CORPOR..\TE BYLA ,,.rs
19
4.1 Dr. Thach, as a shareholder of the corporation, was entitled to the right'> and
20
privileges of a shareholder as described in the corporate bylaws.
21
4.2 Defendants orchestrated the deprivation of Dr. Thach's rights under the bylaws by
22
depriving her of her shareholder status in violation of the corporation's bylaws.
23
4.3 The wrongful deprivation of Dr. Thach 's shareholder status has caused and will
CO.l\1PLtlNT. 9 FREY BUCK, P.S.
1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 19:JO
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P . (206} 486-8000 F• (206) 902·9oo0
 1 conlinue to cause her injury.

2 v. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF

FIDUCIARY DUTY, DUTY OF GOOD FAITH
3 Al'iD FAIR DEALING

4 5.1 Defendants Kincaid, Costello and Does as corporate officers had a fiduciary duty

5 to the corporntion and its shareholders and a duty of good faith and fair dealing; Matrix had a duty

6 to treat minority shareholder Thach reasonably and fairly and acted solely through its corp<,rnte

7 governance structure overseen by defendant1;, Kincaid, Costello and Does.

8 5.2 Defendants violated these duties by ignoring legitimate shareholder concerns,

9 intimidating shareholders, violating shareholder protections ensconced in the corporation's bylaws

10 and stifling intra-sharehnlder communication. Defendants further violated their duties by

11 retaliating against plaintiff for her effort to bring potentially significant legal issues to the

12 corporation for investigation and evaluation.

13 5.3 Defendants acted oppressively and in bad faith through pervasive intimidating ,md

14 retaliatory attacks upon Dr, Thach en1,>ineered to protect their own interests over those of the

15 corporation and in subversion of Dr. Thach's shareholder interests.

16 5.4 On information and belief, defendant.-. Kincaid, Costello and Does also acted for

17 the benefit of their personal interests over those of Dr. Thach in further vi(>lation of their fiduciary

18 duty.

19 5.5 Defendant Matrix also had a duty to treat minority shareholders fairly and not

20 interfere with shareholders' rights and benefits as owners of the company unreasonably.

21 Defendant Matrix violated those duties.

5.6 As a result of the violations of these duties, Dr. Thach has and continues to be

23 injured.

C0!\.·1PLAINT ~ I0 FREY BUCK, P.S,

1200 Firm A VENUE:, SUIT£ 1000
SEATT!.J:t, WA 98101
P. (.206} 486-0000 F (2.06) 902·9660
 VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIO~:
MINORITY SHAREHOLDER. OPPR.ESSIO~

6.1 The pauem of intimidation and retaJiation by Defendants C.osteUo, Kincaid, Does
3
and Matrix ag:aim,t Dr. Thach while she served the MAO board a.,;, its trea.~urer and compliance
4
t)fficer and as a board member of the Matrix board was burdensome, harsh and wrongful. This
5
conduct continued well after Dr. Thach' s resignation from the board and impacted her rights as a
6
shareholder. Defendant.~' improper oppression eventually led to the usurpation of Dr. Thach's
7
shareholder status and the unfounded deprivation of her right.,;.; and benefits a<; a sbareht1Jder.
8
Defendants' acts were not for the benefit of the corpomtion, but rather were for the benefit of
9
individual C(>rpor.:ite officers al the expense of a minority shareholder and in :retaliation for Dr.
lO
Thach's exercise of her rights andrespomibilities as a shareholder.
u
6.2 Defendants' efforts to diminish Dr. Thach and her diligent investigation of potential
l2
anti-kickback statute violations by both Defendanls are incontrovertible evidence of a lack of
13
pmbity and fair dealing in the affairs of Matrix Anesthesia, to the prejudice of its members.
J4
6.3 Defendants' ambush of Dr. Thach in front of her peen on the Matrix board and
15
defamatory statements regarding her actions violated standarili. of fair dealing and fair play on
16
which every shareholder is entitled to rely.
17
6.4 Defendants' conduct meets or exceed!i the standards of minority shareholder
18
oppression in Washington State.
19
6 ..5 As a result of the defendants' oppressive and wrongful conduct, Dr. Thach has and
20
continues t<J be injured.
21
vn. FOUR.TH CAUSE OF ACTION: WHISTLEBW\VER

7J Defendants' conduct as described in this complaint constituted retaliation for Dr.

23
Thach' s effort to evaluate and investigate potential corporate misfeasance.
COl\1PLAINT ~ 11 FREY BUCK, P.S.
1200 FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 1~0
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P, 486~6000 F: (206) 902-9660
 1 7.2 Dr. Thach's efforts were driven by her duty to the corporation as divisional

2 C(>mplianee officer and as a shareholder of the corpor.:ttion.

3 7.3 Defendants' actions are in violation of legal prntections afforded whistleblowen.

4 7.4 Defendants' wrongful actions have caused and continue to cause injury to Dr_

5 Thach.

6 VW. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: OUTRAGE

7 8.1 Defendants deprived Dr. Thach of her shareh<>lder status as a result of her efforts

8 to protect Matrix and it-; shareholders from potential legal exposure under anti-kickback statutes

9 and for voicing her opinions and opposition to defendants' corporate leadership. Defendants'

rn behavior was extreme and outrageous, in violati()n of fiduciary responsibilities and uuerly

11 intolerable in a civil society.

8.2 Defendants intentionall)1 or recklessly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach by

13 subjecting: her, 1.mann(>Unced and ,vithout warning, Lo a direcl, humiliating, unfounded and personal

14 attack in fronl of the Matrix board in retaliation for her act of exercising her responsibility as a

15 divisional compliance officer and shareholder to assure lhat the corporntion was not operating in

16 contravention of the law.

l7 8.3 Defendants intentionally or reckles.-.ly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach

18 through relentless intimidation and character assassination even after they constructivel)'' removed

19 her from her elected positions of trust as the MAO treasurer and a member of the Matrix lx>ard.

20 8.4 Defendants intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach by

21 retali at:ing against her for pointing out potenti. al 1egal incongruities in the corporation's business

affairs, voicing her <'>pinion contrdl'y to corpomle leadership and, on information and belief, in their

23 effort to personally gain through the direction of corpomte affairs at the expense of Dr. Thach.

COMPLAINT~ J 2 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 Fl.Fn-i AVENUE, SUrtE 1500
S£A TTLE, WA 98101
P ~8000 F: (206} 902.,,9660
 1 8.5 Defendants' behavior is reprehensible and goes beyond all possible bounds of

2 decency. It is atrocious and uuerly intolemble in a society where laws and regulations exist to

3 specifically protect the public from <.urpomte malfeasance and deception.

4 8.6 Dr. Thach ha'> i,.uffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distres.,; caused by

5 defendants' extreme and crutrngecms acts and behavior.

6 IX. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFAM.ATION/FAL(ijE LIGHT

7 9. l Defendants ex posed Plaintiff Tien Thach, M.D., to ridicule and injury to her

8 reputation by publicly and improperly cai,.tigating Dr. Thach in front of all MAO shareholders,

9 surgical colleagues, nursing co-workers, and staff at Overtake Hospital l\fodical Center, the Retinal

lO Surgery Center, and Proliance Highlands Surgical Center, v.ithout factual basis and knmving that

11 the charges and allegations were false.

12 Defendants further exposed Plaintiff iO ridicule and injury to her reputation by

l3 immediately terminating her employment and publicly informing that the termination wa.-.

14 necessary due to either a clinical issue or behavior that was contr.rry to the C(>rporation' s interests,

15 bases that the defendants knew to be false.

16 9.3 These act'!. ccmstinue defamation per se as they have impacted Thach in her

l7 profes.-.ional capacity.

18 X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19 Plaintiff Tien Thach, M.D., prays for the foIImving relief:

20 1 Di.~'IDluticm of the corporation pursuant to RCW 23B.14.300~

21 2. Special and general damages in an amount t(> be proven al trial;

22 3. Cosl'> and fees; and

23 4. All other relief a-. the Court deems just and equitable.

COMPL.\INT - 13 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FIF'IH AVENUE, SUITii: 19:10
5rZA TILE, WA 98101
P: 486~8000 F: 902,9660
 l

2 DATED thi.s 1 day of April, 2018.

3
FREYBUCK,P.S.
4

6
By. -r~
Ted Buck, WSBA 122029
Attome.r·for Plaintiff
7

lO

ll

12

l3

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

COMPLAINT~ l4 FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 FIFTH AVENUE, surn:.19:10
SEATTU::,WA981.01
P: (20t:i) 486..SOOO F 902-9660